Can we really determine the veracity of the blog produced observed temp records vs. Dr. Hansen predictions? - index of / jpg / met art
A link to the question ...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ...
Link in question (time not with GISTEMP NASA GISS website)
http://bp2.blogger.com/_X93w7bCMCS8/SJBF ...
NASA GISS global temperature Met Stations
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs ...
See Figure 1 of Hansen's letter ...
http://www.columbia.edu/ ~ jeh1/2005/Crich ...
Because the relationship is not the negation of the GISS temperature, how can we take seriously, if the changed data tailored to your needs?
Friday, January 29, 2010
Index Of / Jpg / Met Art Can We Really Determine The Veracity Of The Blog Produced Observed Temp Records Vs. Dr. Hansen Predictions?
8 comments:
It seems that the blogger is probably the way to the temperature index of the terrestrial oceans.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs ...
Surface weather stations, the air temperature over land are higher because the oceans have not been heat is not as fast as the Earth.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs ...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs ...
So the question is, were 3 scenarios modeled Hansen temperature of the air, land or sea temperatures? I discussed this issue here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index? ...
To answer your question, depends on who writes the blog. RealClimate I go because it's a blog of climate scientists who know how to get this kind of analysis is not written. Gavin Schmidt, for example, is a climate model and the analysis made by us, and also a response to this critical question.
"Firstly, what is the best estimate of the average global air temperature anomaly? GISS produces two estimates - the index of the meteorological station (not togethermuch of the oceans), and an index of land to the sea (with changes in sea temperature satellite stations in addition to TEM). The first is probably the true global air temperature (because the ocean does not warm up faster than the earth) surface rather overestimated, while the latter underestimate the real trend in May when the temperature of air over the sea to grow at a rate slightly higher as the temperature of the ocean. In 2006 paper, Hansen, both used and suggests that the real answer lies in the middle. For our purposes, you will see that there are no major role. "
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc ...
Team Hansen revised forecasts for 2006 and noted that "Observation is probably the best temperature for comparison with climate models between the meteorological and surface-to-air analysis, ground station temperature index oceans," said Schmidt.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006 ...
In short, if you base it on blogs for its scientists, the less you have a fact, do-check them very thorougly, especially if the blogs are biased to refute AGW. Hansen and Schmidt were very careful with the data from the forecast and explain why. Other blogs that have been brought back to earth, can only assume oceanographic data are correct, without explaining why.
Bad assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.
The prediction was: "If CO2 levels A, B or C, the temperature is X, Y or Z, or" - - CO2 in length with a scene, but the slopes of the temperature with the scenario C.
You can with a list of everything you want to play, use a red dot to indicate the extent of the temperature when you stop or do not use a red dot, whatever - - That's not a question of presentation. These predictions were not realized.
In 1988, the prediction significantly overestimates the temperature rise within the next two decades.
Here are three predictions of different temperatures, a correlation of CO2 in a different scenario, where the letter is at the same time as the temperature:
http://bp2.blogger.com/_X93w7bCMCS8/SJBF ...
The fact that only he could argue that "good Stage C is not exaggerating that much warming ...."
In addition to scenario C corresponds to a scenario, will stop the rising CO2 levels to a decade ago - not going to happen naturally. CO2 levels have continued with SCEnario A, which means that the scenario of a prediction is applicable.
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/u ...
It has been said that "the total radiative forcing including CO2, and are closer to Scenario B. In this case, the prognosis is yet. But the most stressful - all the other drives are, of course. This is the point of discussion - whether the CO2 is comparable to a violin solo to meet Saint-Saens Introduction and Rondo Capriccioso, or similar is the third fiddle in the summer four seasons of Vivaldi. It is increasingly apparent that, at least on one, the duration of several decades, the answer is Vivaldi, not Saint-Saens.
EDIT - as you can see, the answer Dana is a contradiction, since the letters do not really understand the two data sets (he calls the whole right side is grayed out).
The differences between the two data sets are small, set mainly on the differences between the twoand one of the findings of Dr. Hansen provided.
http://bp2.blogger.com/_X93w7bCMCS8/SJBF ...
Sure, obtained with the GISS website, which is headed by Hansen, we are clear and objective data about the truth. Huh?
If this is not one of the biggest problems when it comes to what is called the "Global Warming"? Is not it a problem if a person in control of the test, the financing of the collection of data, the interpretation of the data?
If all science is the method of Hansen, as applied theories were proved wrong? My guess is very, very few.
The allegations of bad sentence is really wrong conclusions lead Hansen to work a "T". I spent all my free time to try more than one month, given the usual tests to prove that CO2 is a gas, validate warming. What I found instead is that in each case, the test procedure, the sample is saturated with moisture, and show that these tests is no moisture traps heat. Each sample test of CO2 saturation between 80% and 100% humidity in the test gauges. When using a sample of dry air below 10% moisture content, samples of the high CO2 faster than air cooled samples.
and you have a strong temperature records from GISS.
How can we take seriously, if the conversion from intact (as in the adjustments to the data!)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/23/ad ...
Hansen holds data and corrected again and again, was partly on the blog on "" I wonder why everything he says take seriously.
The link you show has not been updated to reflect the cooling trend in recent years into account. Blog s.
Yes we can. ClimateAudit.org is the market leader Steve McIntyre Oil Exec.
Stephen McIntyre is described as a "consultant in mineral exploration. Wikipedia shows it as if the former president and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited and Director of the parent company, Northwest, Northwest Explorations Inc. When Explorations Inc. was founded in 1998 by CGX Resources Inc . acquired to form the oil and gas company CGX Energy Inc., McIntyre ceased as a director. McIntyre was a strategic advisor for CGX in the year 2000 to 2003 [4].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McI ...
What do you expect from an officer of the oil industry to do, a champion of climate controls on the consumption of fossil fuels? Why no one has all the information from a source so obviously biased worthy issued to any discussion?
If there is a valid peer-reviewed science in all parts of the doubt on global warming by themselves or serious doubts about the role of humanity, why not all the skeptics (including paid professionals such as StevenMcIntyre) is to present and discuss in a simple way?
There is not even 1 climatologist, does not say global warming occur, or that man plays no role?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index? ...
Why do the other side of the conversation, there are hundreds of scientists, the papers have been published specifically on the question of attribution of global warming on humanity alone (reviewed and there are hundreds of other document that the warming itself)?
The breakdown of understanding and climate change
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report ... real peer-reviewed research in leading journals in the list published in the References section in this chapter:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report ...
In the absence of verified and validated (peer reviewed) documenting the scientific, academic challenge of global warming, I suggest that the debate is the propaganda of the oil industry over a prediction of a waste of time.
Of course rediercting is a waste of time and the conversation is exactly whatSome people are paid to do ...
Knowledge, the uncertainty of what
In his report on the science of global warming, the face of powerful forces journalists, also funded by strategies of tobacco companies.
By David Michaels
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/to ...
Fortunately, in the case of Steven McIntyre, his own interest in this subject is clear.
Post a Comment